DU - Health Risk?

Yes different thing.

NATO bombed studios that were pumping out propaganda for Milosevic, keeping pasions high and prolonging the warfare. Much the same happened on both sides in WW2. Transmitters and aerials are actually very very difficult to destroy via bombing, and are relatively easy to repair. Studios and filming equipment are easier to destroy and harder to repair. Bottom line on the civilians, the media were working for the state, assisting the state in their war activities. In terms of International Law on these matters, I think that this makes them not much different from a factory producing guns being bombed and the workers dying. But then my International Law is shakey.

US Reporters in the Middle East are actually doing more harm than good for the Coalition involvement there. If anything the insurgents should be shaking their hands. But seriously, they are not working for the state, they are not deliberately assisting the state (and in many cases are arguing against the state). This is the difference.

 

If an installation is military, it is a valid target, even though it is privately owned, and operated by civilians. One good example is weapon factories.

 

I did not say anything or bambing airplane factory,ammo factory,etc. i sayed for television,and bottom is that 28 killed civilians preventer it to work only 24h....

 

Which is testament to the skills and dedication of the repairers, but does not invalidate a state television station as a valid target regardless of whether civilians work there or not.

Bottom line is that in every recent war media sources are targets of attack, for very good reasons. In every war throughout history non-combatants suffer. Whilst unfortunate and tragic (The same can be said for war as a whole), this is unavoidable.

If the TV station wasn't being used as a tool of the state, it would have been much less likely to be attacked, the broadcasts of the station itself validated it's choice as a target.

 

Actualy they just settle in new location.But look this otther way,what if somebody bomb some US Television? In ur case u call it terrorism.

 

In order for such an analogy to make sense you must first put it in some logical context. If the UN or Nato were moving troops into the US to stop genocide and there was fighting going on then it would be a different situation wouldn't it? If a terrorist organization bombs a US television station to further their own agenda ,( which is not accepted by the rest of the world), then yes that would be terrorism.

 

Whilst not an American I concur with Greig, I'd say in an open, declared war I would positively expect the enemies of Britain to attack the BBC in my nation's case and I would not question the legality or legitimacy of such actions, despite the fact that whilst state funded the BBC is not state run.

The IRA did attack the BBC themselves some years ago, this I do consider terrorism since they do not represent a legimate government in an open, declared war.

 

Furthermore, the attack would have to be carried out by members of a uniformed army for it to be legal.

 

War on Yugoslavia was newer declared,r aprooved by Security council in UN.

 

Question, was there ever a war between NATO and Yugoslavia? I thought it was NATO vs Serbia...

 

in 1999. there was Federal Republic Yugoslavia, (Serbian and monteneggro),so it is corect to say Yugoslavia,but not Ex SFRJ.